In a few threads I have seen that some tend to think capitalism originated in Europe, while others argue that capitalism is natural.
What do you think?
Did capitalism exist before and was just not practiced untill europe? Or did the euopeans plan out capitalism like they try to with socialism?
I do think that 'capitalism' is a product of man's nature, although the market institutions that we take for granted today certainly did not necessarily exist in the past — 'capitalism' [the market economy; market coordination forces; et cetera] is in continuous development. When answering the question it's important to ask what 'capitalism' is and represents, otherwise you get more confused responses, such as Merlin's (although, I'm very perplexed when he writes that capitalism does not reflect on human nature). Capitalism evolves as a result of economizing man, who choses amongst means and ends — rational (economizing) man is a function of human nature.
1) I don't mind you giving that response to me; however if you do that to anyone else moderating action will be done. As will be the case to anyone who responds in a likewise manner to you.
2) If you have any further personal issues with me, as this is now off topic, take it up via PM or in .....
MEMBER ISSUES:
http://mises.org/Community/groups/memberissues/default.aspx
This forum is for issues with other members. Subscribe and unsubscribe as necessary to deal with issues. Subscribe permanently, if you like to tune into member drama. Feel free to stay unsubscribed if you want to tune it out.
William: 1) I don't mind you giving that response to me; however if you do that to anyone else moderating action will be done. As will be the case to anyone who responds in a likewise manner to you.
So much for freedom of speech.
"No system could be further from man’s instinctual constitution than capitalism. It’s a very new, very late and very ‘unnatural’ development. If it will come to be, it will be in spite of human nature, not because of it."
Lol no, not at all. Just as anarchism is the natural so is capitalism. Everything else is the political or societal arrangement of capital.
"What is that book called? I am lebanese and as far as I know, the phoenicians are my direct ancestors."
It's called The Phoenicians and the West by Maria-Eugenia Aubet from the Universidad Autonoma of Barcelona.
Edit: I just realized that it says "Universidad Autonoma of Barcelona" in the book, but it should"de" instead of "of".
I think the division of labor is a key part of our current way of things. But private ownership of the means of production or "capitalism" doesn' t necessarily imply division of labor.
"Capitalism is not a simple synonym for market. If I said "I'm going to the supercapitalism to buy some apples" you would think I was nuts. If I said "I thought there was a capitalism for pink bunnies, so I opened a pink bunny store" I would sound stupid. "
I never said that market was a synonym for capitalism. I said that it was one thing that has existed along with the division of labor and some semblance of property in the past.
This is one of the greatest history books of all time. The Phoenician civilization is vastly understudied
Phaedros: "No system could be further from man’s instinctual constitution than capitalism. It’s a very new, very late and very ‘unnatural’ development. If it will come to be, it will be in spite of human nature, not because of it." Lol no, not at all. Just as anarchism is the natural so is capitalism. Everything else is the political or societal arrangement of capital.
Anarchism is not the same as capitalism. It took me a longtime to get that, but I finally got it. ‘Anarchism’ is a meaningless blanket term. ‘The state’ has no independent existence. It can only exist in a context of property rights. Thus, only ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is a meaningful term, but that too must be revised.
As for capitalism being natural, do you charge rents to your kids? If a friend asks for five bucks, do you ask him for interest afterwards? Do you charge your dates for the drive home? Do you even pay your dates for sexual favors?
Not a single transaction if your inner circle is capitalistic. As Hayek notes, capitalism was only born when relations extended beyond one’s “Dumbar circle”, very, very late in human history (I’d even say as late as in the Dutch Republic) . That’s why people are so naturally inclined to socialism: it’s what their inner circle, and most of our evolved culture and indeed genes, ares build upon.
I didn't say anarchism was capitalism did I? I might charge rent to someone that needed a place to stay for the night or ask them to do some chores or something. Relations have extended beyond the Dumbar circle, if by that you mean simple family and friend relations, for thousands of years. Could you elaborate on the Dumbar circle? I can't find anything on it. I find it telling that capitalistic inclinations have always been present in human society, and necessary, when you have Roman emperors trying to impose price controls and wage controls or when you have people producing silk or other goods to take to market.
An interesting point from this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_economy to think about is this, "Governments have tried to regulate (formalize) aspects of their economies for as long as surplus wealth has existed which is at least as early as Sumer. Yet no such regulation has ever been wholly enforceable. Archaeological and anthropological evidence strongly suggests that people of all societies regularly adjust their activity within economic systems in attempt to evade regulations. Therefore, if informal economic activity is that which goes unregulated in an otherwise regulated system then informal economies are as old as their formal counterparts, if not older."
Just read this now in Phoenicians and the West, "What is more, it is now on record that, in Mesopotamia, market and price fluctuations coexisted with systems of redistribution and reciprocity from the end of the fourth millenium BC." -pg. 84
Let me make it clear that I am not saying that capitalism was invented in the XVI century. As long as there is one city, there must be a market, however limited. So as long as there has been civilization, there has been a modicum of trade and market. But we’ve had civilization for a mere 8000 years against the tens of thousands of evolution for homo sapiens. 8000 years are nothing at all for evolution. So, we’re still genetically geared to function in small circles.
Now, Dunbar’s number is the number of people you can meaningfully know and retain personal contacts with at any time: family, friends and coworkers. It hangs around 120-150. Beyond that there is no way you can establish rations in any way bur through the market
So, we have man who must live at the same time in two worlds: his Dumbar circle, which would be destroyed if it was treated by capitalistic means, and the extended, global order (civilization) which collapses if we try to run it as we do with our family. The benefit of having an inner circle is clear, that of having an extended order far less so. You control you inner circle, no one controls civilization. The inner circle is planned, civilization is spontaneous and seemingly capricious and random. Which of these orders will be more readily sacrificed by someone who can’t stand living in two different standards, you assume?
Let history testify to the collapse of the market order. I repeat that as long as we’ve had civilization, there has been such an extension, but civilization is not a continuum. Take some regiuon at random, say the Arabian peninsula. It was peopled by nomadic herdsmen until the eight century, whereupon form it sprang a huge civilization, which again collapsed to be revived only by colonization in the XIX century. So saying that we’ve always had civilization is misleading: we can say that there’s always is some civilization somewhere, but not that every part of the earth is civilized and functioning beyond Dumbar’s at all times.
I must advise Hayek’s The fatal conceit as a very dense and important work detailing his theory of the extended versus internal order. I’m finding that it is changing my conception of many things.
Bearchu:I think the division of labor is a key part of our current way of things. But private ownership of the means of production or "capitalism" doesn' t necessarily imply division of labor.
Well... other way around. There can't really be capitalism without a division of labor, but there can be trade and a division of labor without capitalism. But I do agree with William. It is not controversial to associate trade and the division of labor with the emergence of civilization.
And Merlin is saying the same thing you would read from Hayek or Walter Block or many others. Man's instincts evolved to favor altruism and solidarity. Capitalist values may be considered natural in the broader sense that they emerged through cultural evolution, but the point is that respect for indirect exchange and the 'selfishness' necessary to an extended capitalist order go against our long-standing instincts.
So if i make somthing out of clay, (dig it up, mold it, and fire it) and sell it on the market. Is that not capitalism, with out the division of labor?
Or would be assume that "market" wouldnt exist with out he DoL happening at some point before?
Michael J Green: Bearchu:I think the division of labor is a key part of our current way of things. But private ownership of the means of production or "capitalism" doesn' t necessarily imply division of labor. Well... other way around. There can't really be capitalism without a division of labor, but there can be trade and a division of labor without capitalism. But I do agree with William. It is not controversial to associate trade and the division of labor with the emergence of civilization. And Merlin is saying the same thing you would read from Hayek or Walter Block or many others. Man's instincts evolved to favor altruism and solidarity. Capitalist values may be considered natural in the broader sense that they emerged through cultural evolution, but the point is that respect for indirect exchange and the 'selfishness' necessary to an extended capitalist order go against our long-standing instincts.
I asked William what he meant by 'civilisation' and he said, 'The division of labour'. So of course, by that definition, it isn't controversal to associate the division of labour with the emergance of civilisation - because the division of labour is civilisation.
"It is not controversial to associate trade and the division of labor with the emergence of civilization."
I wont argue with you there. But does this imply that civilization=capitalism? Also, is it necessarily the case that the DoL goes hand-in-hand with trade? I think not.